J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[latenlazy]

Not if the secret lies in the fact that the nozzle is linked to the WS-15/J-20, rather than the nozzle design itself (which indeed would not likely make it into the press if it was). Outright spilling the beans would be risky in that case, whereas the indirect hints he actually gave might just pass muster (plausible deniability from his point of view, the very fact that we're debating his statement like this shows it would serve the purpose). Again, classification need not be logical, or at least not intuitive to outside observers - for instance, somebody could have decided that for some obscure reason it was necessary to maintain ambiguity about whether TVC was planned for the WS-15.

Why would the fact that the WS-15/J-20 uses that specific TVC nozzle be a secret when we already know based on another leaker that the nozzle is currently being tested on a J-20. The plausible deniability argument doesn't make sense to me. The information he's conveying is obvious, as is his ID. He's already put his qualifications online for people to see.

It's not that I think disagree about the general principles and mechanics of leaks and classification, but it doesn't seem to me that the facts of the case fit the scenarios you're laying out.

More different than a F100 to a F135 or an AL-31F to an advanced bomber engine which never actually materialized in the end? It has been done before.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the F100 and F135 don't seem to share the same nozzle.

Stouter than the WS-10, or the AL-31F? By con-di nozzle standards, the J-10 TVC nozzle is pretty short, a feature it shares with the F135 (which has a short divergent section due to ground clearance concerns on the F-35B 3BSN, but it could equally serve as a weight saving measure on another engine).

Stouter than the WS-10, but I should probably refer back to the source of that information to be sure. He may not have said anything definitive about the nozzle specifically and I'm just drawing out more than was presented in the specific comments. My memory isn't what it used to be.

 

[Hyperwarp]

And I honestly hope Gongke does not get invited to tea!

 

[latenlazy]

It was only a forum message, which doesn't warrant 7 pages of detailed scrutinization just on the use of words. Gongke101 could have missed 1 character {会} in this clause and the entire message would have a different interpretation.

"不过许多人还是 {会} 有机会看见装在20上的15的菊花的"

"but many people still {will} have the chance to see the flower (nozzle) of 15, assembled at (equipped on) 20"

Without {会}, it is only natural to read the message in past tense, especially following "最近3年" (the recent 3 years) in the earlier clause. And "装在" doesn't mean "intended for", but "assembled at" or "equipped on".

I wouldn't attribute it to being a typo. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't mean that many people *will* see the nozzle, but that many people have *already* seen the nozzle. We can conclude this reasonably because of the clause before the one you're examining, where he's contrasting how in the past 3 years very few people have seen the whole engine (thus presumably don't know what the whole engine physically looks like) *but* many people have seen the nozzle. This is not what was in dispute though. What was actually in dispute the last few pages is whether Gongke was saying the J-20 had already equipped the WS-15.

 

[SDWatcher]

I'm pretty sure that he doesn't mean that many people *will* see the nozzle, but that many people have *already* seen the nozzle.

I suppose Gongke101 likely did make a typo by missing 1 character {会}, because the clause was,

""不过许多人还是 {会} 有机会看见装在20上的15的菊花的"

"but many people still {will} have the chance to see the flower (nozzle) of 15, assembled at (equipped on) 20"

explicitly mentioning being seen, equipped on J-20, not just the nozzle of WS-15 by itself.

I would use the Occam's Razor here, with the simplest reasonable explanation.

 

[latenlazy]

I suppose Gongke101 likely did make a typo by missing 1 character {会}, because the clause was,

""不过许多人还是 {会} 有机会看见装在20上的15的菊花的"

"but many people still {will} have the chance to see the flower (nozzle) of 15, assembled at (equipped on) 20"

explicitly mentioning being seen, equipped on J-20, not just the nozzle of WS-15 by itself.

I would use the Occam's Razor here, with the simplest reasonable explanation.

I think the simplest reasonable explanation is that Gongke is just very casual with his speech style, not that he made a typo. At least that's what I've observed of him while following his comments.

If I said "你有机会看见装在iPhone上的相机的镜头圈"/"you will have an opportunity to see the camera ring of the camera equipped on the iPhone" (convoluted example, I know, but bear with me) would you interpret that sentence to connote that some action or event had happened, that the camera has just been as an event or action been installed on the iPhone? No. 装在iPhone上的相机的 is being used as a modifier to specify what camera ring you're talking about in that sentence. The connotation of "装在"/to equip or install wrt the camera and the iPhone is that we are talking specifically about the camera which you will find on the iPhone and not some camera you will find on some other phone. The camera is equipped on an iPhone in the abstract because that's the specific abstract identity association of the camera to the device it is installed in. A camera does not have to actually physically installed onto an iPhone for that abstract identity association to exist. Grammatically I don't think this is actually complicated to understand.

 

[SDWatcher]

I think the simplest reasonable explanation is that Gongke is just very casual with his speech style, not that he made a typo.

Actually, being casual on forum messages is common, which is the reason I mentioned earlier that, it doesn't warrant 7 pages of detailed scrutinization, just on the use of words. And being casual can coexist with not caring to correct a typo, as Gongke101 likely did.

Grammatically I don't think this is actually complicated to understand.

Native Chinese mostly don't use grammar. These rules are imported to help foreigners. Until you can go with the flow, without referencing any grammar rules, you may not have learned the language.

 

[by78]

One heck of a big mountain out of a mirage of a molehill.

Gongke simply didn't say WS-15 had been installed on the J-20.

Move on, people, move on.

 

[latenlazy]

Actually, being casual on forum messages is common, which is the reason I mentioned earlier that, it doesn't warrant 7 pages of detailed scrutinization, just on the use of words. And being casual can coexist with not caring to correct a typo, as Gongke101 likely did.

It shouldn't require 7 pages of detailed scrutinization, and it wouldn't if a certain someone hadn't kept inventing new excuses to keep insisting that his hacked together google translated comprehension of Gongke's comments were correct. And yes, it could have just been a careless typo, but that seems unnecessarily speculative to me (it adds more information than is there, or is necessary), especially considering that this isn't the first time Gongke has made mention of other people seeing the nozzle even if they haven't seen the whole WS-15 before.

Native Chinese mostly don't use grammar. These rules are imported to help foreigners. Until you can go with the flow, without referencing any grammar rules, you may not have learned the language.

All languages have inherent grammatical logic. Contemporary Chinese doesn't have as many rigid grammar conventions, but that doesn't mean there are no common tendencies and rules.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I think it is beneficial for CJDBY to hold on to members like gongke. As soon as the post count is down they can get them to post some non-news in the forum and voila, participation is up again.

 

[latenlazy]

I think it is beneficial for CJDBY to hold on to members like gongke. As soon as the post count is down they can get them to post some non-news in the forum and voila, participation is up again.

Yep.